UK Hoover Timeline...

[turbo500]

The Hoover Vortex...

Personally, I thought that the Hoover Vortex did a much better job than the DC01. It had stronger suction power and the addition of the activator brushroll AND more practical tools. It was also of considerably better build quality. I know of a number of houses still using the original white and red Vortex cleaners. I think this pissed Mr. D off even more that Hoover had actually made a better version of his cleaner.

 

[jmurray01]

"I think this pissed Mr. D off even more that Hoover had actually made a better version of his cleaner." Ha ha, I can believe that was true.

Am I the only one here who thinks that if James Dyson had got together with Hoover in 1992 and they had worked together then we might have actually had very good bagless Hoovers ?

Think about it, Dyson had the No Loss of Suction cyclonic system which even I admit was pretty good and Hoover had the Activator brush roll and the great build quality.

In my eyes they could have made something truly brilliant if they had worked together.

A well built body, No Loss of Suction cyclonic bagless system, great brush roll and the name people still trusted back in the early 90s.

It is a shame such a partnership did not form and if I'm right in thinking that James Dyson did go to other brands with his ideas then Hoover will be kicking themselves now for not taking him on I'm sure.

 

[madabouthoovers]

Yes, Mr D did go to other manufacturers with his designs but they just laughed at him and pooh poohed them! They were enjoying the profits they were making from people buying their disposable dustbags, so why would they want to make a cleaner that didnt use them? They also ridiculed his idea of clear dust containers, but as we know now - people were really fascinated by seeing their own dust spinning round the cyclone bins lol

 

[jmurray01]

"people were really fascinated by seeing their own dust spinning round the cyclone bins" Not me, I hate seeing my dirt, makes the vacuum look dirty.

 

[turbo500]

I agree Jamie, if Hoover had formed a good partnership with James Dyson, we could have had a fantastic cleaner and this could've saved Hoover from the disasterous Free Flights Fiasco. Mr. Dyson's cyclone works extremely well - better than any other on the market. But James Dyson is NOT a vacuum enthusiast. He is an engineer who sadly does not seem to know much about carpet care or carpet cleaning.

 

[jmurray01]

Indeed, the idea is there but the performance is not.

 

[turbo500]

Philips cylinder range in Argos 1986 - the P60 is the top of the page and retailed at £49.95

 

[jmurray01]

"This post has been removed by the member who posted it." That sounds ominous...

 

[vintagerepairer]

Merloni may have fully aquired GDA in 2007, but they had a huge stake in the company from around the year 2000.

James Dyson did indeed lose his case against Vax, who based their cleaner on a DC02. Dyson then lost the appeal as well.

 

[sebo_fan]

Yes but when you look at timeline history with Hoover products when other brands have paid Hoover to use their machines, it's not like its the other way around until now. What I'm trying to say here is that whilst Hoover and Dyson may have been good for each other, I don't think Dyson would have bowled down to have his name quashed with the Hoover brand. It is true that he could have had any other vacuum cleaner brand and model at the time - to realise that the dust bags kept clogging and were pretty much useless after the third or fourth attempt, but Dyson wanted to retain his name - and I don't think Hoover were happy to take on the brand or the invention because of the laws Dyson stipulated at the time. 


 


Frankly when it comes down to it, Dyson doesn't need to care tuppence about carpet cleaning, let alone grooming a carpet = these are secondary issues against the cyclone design he's done.


 


You all may have your own views of a Dyson vacuum that doesn't remove deep down dust - but at the end of the day, if the machine removes the dust you can see, then it shouldn't be such an issue.


 


Lets not also forget that the fabled, failed Sinclair C5 was bizarely run by a Hoover washing machine motor and Hoover UK went as far to service Sinclair C5 trikes. I liked that trike but it's a pity that it never took off and ultimately for Hoover, spelt another disaster.

 

[jmurray01]

The way I see it from the start Dyson has been interested in fancy cyclones but not given a thought to carpet care and Hoover (until the Dyson's release) didn't care to bother with a bagless attempt but DID care about carpet grooming.

For that reason I think it would have been good to have something with a good cyclonic system and a brush roll capable of removing deep down dirt.

 

[sebo_fan]

I used to have that opinion Jamie - many years ago - much about the same time when I started to become a vacuum cleaner collector and being led into Hoover marketing mantra aspects. But, over the years having worked with contract cleaning teams cleaning both home and industrial areas with a myriad of machines, "deep down dust" is just a marketing tool phrase that Hoover et al of its rivals have continually used to sell their machines. Even Miele use similar promises with their air driven turbo brush and some would argue on here that the STB 205 doesn't go deep enough.


 


As consumers, we are promised this and that and the "deep down dirt" removal isn't exactly an easy process we, as owners can judge unless you waste a bag each time to view the dirt collected!


 


It would be all very well if the dust that was "deep down" is actually being removed - but most of the time - and I found this is more apparent with Dyson's vacs with their 100% continuous suction, I began to realise that their machines are far more aggressive because they are often removing the actual carpet fibres. This is easy to test if you have strong coloured carpet as it can all be seen in the view bin. The machines are aggressive because of the strong suction, and when there's a brush roller used in tandem, it's possible to wear a carpet out if you need to clean carpets daily - and far more damage can incur compared to a conventional bagged vacuum.


 


Of course, Dyson had little interest in carpet cleaning - his idea was to use a factory cyclone and make it smaller to maintain suction instead of putting up with a clogged dust bag or continually having to buy bags with conventional vacuums. You have to bear in mind, Dyson didn't want to become a vacuum cleaner brand, but rather remain as an inventor and designer, cue the wheelbarrow ball idea and the ranges of appliances, Dyson has since done.

 

[vintagerepairer]

I could not have written that better myself.

 

[alexhoovers94]

True


Although I don't get were he got the idea of vacuum bags clogging, as at the time people had dirty air vacuums like Mr Dyson himself, Hoover Junior now I have never noticed with all dirty air machines the performace barely changes untill the bag is packed full or if you pick up lots of flour or something of that sort.

It made me laugh when I saw an interveiw with James Dyson, discussing his first Dyson cleaner, he said "we got it going entirly on the basis, of that, it worked better, so people who bought it and brave enough to buy it and you took it home, then they told other people about it, they would say, I bought this thing, I have never heard of Dyson before, but I bought this stange looking machine and it is brilliant, it cleaned my house like like it had never been cleaned before."

Now that was a lie!

 

[vintagerepairer]

Actually, I must suggest that part is true. A good deal of people did buy them solely on the basis that Mrs Nextdoor had just taken delivery of hers. That is people for you.

 

[jmurray01]

I think the part Alex saw as a lie was the bit where it stated your house had been cleaned like it had never been before.

I totally agree with dirty fans having close to peak suction until the bag requires replacement.

 

[vintagerepairer]

Well that again is quite possible. You see, although the DC02 cylinder did not go on sale until a couple of years after the DC01 upright, it was never the less on sale long before those halcyon days of the later 1990's when Dyson sales climbed up & up & up. Now, despite a choice of upright or cylinder, the upright was always the most popular, even amongst those who'd always has cylinders. Can you imagine the faces of those people when they vacuum for the first time with an upright see-through cleaner? The DC01 would remove so much dirt which the user didn't know they had, and they could see this. So in that sense, homes may well have been given a clean to a standard never known before.

Even people who'd had uprights before were impressed with what they saw in the Dyson tank. Then, the over-excited new Dyson owner would often begin a crusade of the home, looking for dirt and giving the place a good clean. So again, homes may have been cleaner because of that.

Dirty fan cleaners are no different from clean fan when it comes to losing power as the bag fills, as the principle of the air needing a good flow with a good entry and exit point remains the same. Maybe it is just how it feels, maybe it feels like they lose less power. Certainly I always thought they lost power as the bag filled.

 

[sebo_fan]

Alex - the whole point of where Dyson got the dust bag from clogging is simply from his own experience - and its possible that you have missed that info as it is in Dyson's book. He ran out of Hoover dust bags for his Junior model, couldn't get any at the time and ended up using the dust bag again, to which point the vacuum cleaner couldn't handle the amount of dust required to fill the bag because of the clogged pores. Let's not forget Hoover went to great lengths to suggest that their dust bags were "reusable" even if we all know by now that it meant the dust bag could be used a second time after it had been shaken free of dust. Most owners however didn't know this at the time and forever used the paper dust bag a third or fourth time if it was possible. 

 

[alexhoovers94]

Yes, Jamie is correct, I did mean the last part where he said "it cleaned my house like I never had it cleaned before" and after what I just read from Benny's post (further up) I can understand what James Dyson may of meant, I think I just took it the wrong way.

I do disagree with you though Benny in that you said the clean and dirty air cleaners loose performance equally.
A clean air machine has to pull the airflow threw the dirt and dust inside the bag to get to the filter and then to the motor, where as in a dirty air machine the dust and dirt is being compacted down at the bottom, and all the top of the bag space is left for air to escape freely.
Yes the pores of the bag do clog and I am not saying in a dirty air you loose no performance, you will loose a little, but your suction should stay pretty much optimal until the bag is full, or like I said before, if you suck up lots and lots of fine powdery or dusty particles.

 

[vintagerepairer]

Hello Alex. Well yes, I was thinking about how the fine, powdery dust is sprayed around the dustbag and lines it...as you say, there is a larger part at the top which is free when dust is compacted to the bottom of the bag. Though in all cleaners, the design of the bag compartment makes a good deal of difference. Old cylinder cleaners which are long in shape were designed so that the dirt was spun out to the walls of the cloth dust bag, leaving a long hollow through the centre for air to flow. That all but disappeared when squarer containers became the norm.